Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus:davidphogan: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Same people that still think black people should be worth 3/5 of a white person. I wish you all would move to the South with your guns and you could suck each others' small dicks all day long. In case you didn't notice, we won the election in November and we are on track to keep winning. Get ready for some changes.

Wow, you just completely gave up. That's sad.

That is not giving up, that is going all in and destroying your opponent. Notice you had ZERO rebuttal to any of my points.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

It's not specifically enumerated, but you have the constitutional right to own anything you want, provided you do so legally.

Bull. That's a specious statement.Oxford English Dictionary "regulate"Origin: late Middle English (in the sense 'control by rules'): from late Latin regulat- 'directed, regulated', from the verb regulare, from Latin regula 'rule'

The Founders used "regulated" in the same sense and way that we do. They also used the word "discipline (Article I Section 8) in the same sense we do.

Perhaps idiom isn't the correct word (as that implies a sharp disconnect between literal and actual meaning), but the meaning of the time was simply competent. It's not the only place in the Constitution where colloquial meanings were used.

Regardless - in the end, the 2nd Amendment means what SCOTUS says it means, and our opinions are just an academic exercise.

Heller and McDonald upheld an individual right. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what kind of scrutiny ruling we get. Gun control is going nowhere with this Congress. The only plausible avenue for gun rights to be further defined over the next two years (minimum) is the courts. Until one of the Heller 5 is replaced, I think we all know which direction the Court leans.

Huck And Molly Ziegler:Can't we just modify the Second Amendment a TINY bit? To where you're not allowed to own functioning crap that can kill a whole lot of people in 30 seconds? You can't hunt with it, you can't do meaningful target practice with it.

Six rounds, bolt action, and can take out a moving president at 200 yards.

But wait, it gets better! You think that's dangerous?

That's a doctor's bag, with surgical tools. There was a guy in England once who murdered at least sixteen women using nothing more than that and got away with it! How did he get away with it? No guns shots, no noise.

In the end, you can kill a person with a pencil, or a piece of piano wire, a pointy stick or even just a lead pipe. If that's still too much trouble you can always use your bare hands and beat them to death.

But hey, let's blame the tools and not the people using them. That should solve everything, yup.

Bull. That's a specious statement.Oxford English Dictionary "regulate"Origin: late Middle English (in the sense 'control by rules'): from late Latin regulat- 'directed, regulated', from the verb regulare, from Latin regula 'rule'

The Founders used "regulated" in the same sense and way that we do. They also used the word "discipline (Article I Section 8) in the same sense we do.

Perhaps idiom isn't the correct word (as that implies a sharp disconnect between literal and actual meaning), but the meaning of the time was simply competent. It's not the only place in the Constitution where colloquial meanings were used.

Regardless - in the end, the 2nd Amendment means what SCOTUS says it means, and our opinions are just an academic exercise.

Heller and McDonald upheld an individual right. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what kind of scrutiny ruling we get. Gun control is going nowhere with this Congress. The only plausible avenue for gun rights to be further defined over the next two years (minimum) is the courts. Until one of the Heller 5 is replaced, I think we all know which direction the Court leans.

Ya know, after Somacandra dismantled you with the original source, you farking maroon, you should have given up.Well regulated does not mean competent in an Article I Section 8 or Amendment II context.

Secondly, and most importantly, Congress gets to define the terms - task, conditions, and standards. Militia powers are enumerated, and SCOTUS will NOT fark with those, especially given the historical legislative record of intent and regulation.

Psycat:Knock off the tiresome bickering, guys, or I'll blast you with my love gun that shoots 900 smooches per minute. With that kind of firepower, you'll be kissin' and rimmin'* each other in no time.

[craftside.typepad.com image 320x453]*And calling it chocolate...

Log_jammin Nina_Hartley's_Ass? It already sounds like innuending. What more do you need?

Grand_Moff_Joseph:But don't you dare take those modifications away. the founding fathers clearly intended for these devices to be available.

/snark

We should ban simple physics. You can slide/bump fire with a stick or just your thumb. But we should ban those too. The founding fathers clearly didnt intend for us to have assault twigs or assault thumbs.

You can read me, skip me or ignore me just like anyone else here but I'm not getting involved in a feud or whatever your personal issues are

yes, I am aware of what my options are. The option I choose was to reply. and I have no feud or personal issues, I'm just pointing out that your comments in these threads lack humor, information, or anything of value, and I'm suggesting that you may find it beneficial to remedy that. Or you may not. I suspect that you won't.

now, you can feel free to read me, skip me or ignore me just like anyone else here, but know that when I see BS, I sometimes choose to respond to it.

no seriously. grow up. you're not clever and you contribute nothing. you just beavis and butthead the thread with "dick...heh heh heh.."

Ignore me.

Censorship is a liberal ideal, here in the free world we don't silence those we don't agree with.

No, it really isn't. Anti-gun people just aren't liberal. I don't know why they should get that liberal title. It's like most conservatives and their cry for fiscal conservatism, they take the bullsh*t all the way to the bank.

Authoritarians just want to control people, gays, guns, soda, tobacco, marijuana, whatever, that's what they do. And they are on both sides of our horribly defined whateverthehellwehave.

violentsalvation:Authoritarians just want to control people, gays, guns, soda, tobacco, marijuana, whatever, that's what they do. And they are on both sides of our horribly defined whateverthehellwehave.

log_jammin:demaL-demaL-yeH: Log_jammin Nina_Hartley's_Ass? It already sounds like innuending. What more do you need?

If this was facebook I'd give him a poke right now.

Fark is not your personal erotica site?

Back to Amendment II: Why are certain restrictions of rights acceptable (incitement to riot, no counterfeiting) for some rights, but no restrictions are acceptable for arms? Is it just rank stupidity, or do you think it's just an "I've got mine. Screw you." scenario, or is it some combination of the two mixed with inbreeding?

I'm trying to figure out how an Amendment that starts out with an explicit statement of the concomitant responsibility before naming the right is somehow less limited than speech, or the press, or peaceable assembly (cf "free speech zone"), which have no such qualifier.

demaL-demaL-yeH:log_jammin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Log_jammin Nina_Hartley's_Ass? It already sounds like innuending. What more do you need?

If this was facebook I'd give him a poke right now.

Fark is not your personal erotica site?

Back to Amendment II: Why are certain restrictions of rights acceptable (incitement to riot, no counterfeiting) for some rights, but no restrictions are acceptable for arms? Is it just rank stupidity, or do you think it's just an "I've got mine. Screw you." scenario, or is it some combination of the two mixed with inbreeding?

I'm trying to figure out how an Amendment that starts out with an explicit statement of the concomitant responsibility before naming the right is somehow less limited than speech, or the press, or peaceable assembly (cf "free speech zone"), which have no such qualifier.

Incitement to riot, the commonly brought up "no yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not a restriction on the First Amendment in the same way that restricting certain types of firearms is a restriction of the Second Amendment. It is a situation in which a person is not protected by their First Amendment right to freedom of speech from civil/legal liability. A restriction on what types of firearms are protected to "keep and bear" is a form of prior restraint. The equivalent for the First Amendment would be theater patrons having their mouths duct taped so they cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

To review: yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not a First Amendment protected action. Misusing a firearm (assault, murder, etc.) is not a Second Amendment protected action. This particular analogy is flawed and you should no longer use it.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

It's not specifically enumerated, but you have the constitutional right to own anything you want, provided you do so legally.

You have added a legislative qualifier -- "provided you do so legally" -- constitutional rights are not subject to legislation. Congress can regulate the hell out of just about any product they want to, even to the point of making products illegal to own at all. You can't do that with guaranteed rights. What the guarantee means is subject to SCOTUS interpretation, but you can't legislate tests or qualifiers on rights.

A blind man cannot drive a car. You must get a doctor's permission in order to buy certain drugs. These have legislative qualifiers because they aren't guaranteed rights.

Lenny_da_Hog:You have added a legislative qualifier -- "provided you do so legally" -- constitutional rights are not subject to legislation. Congress can regulate the hell out of just about any product they want to, even to the point of making products illegal to own at all. You can't do that with guaranteed rights. What the guarantee means is subject to SCOTUS interpretation, but you can't legislate tests or qualifiers on rights.

A blind man cannot drive a car. You must get a doctor's permission in order to buy certain drugs. These have legislative qualifiers because they aren't guaranteed rights.

about four times I thought "but what about....." then realized everything I could think of came from the judicial and not the legislative.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

It's not specifically enumerated, but you have the constitutional right to own anything you want, provided you do so legally.

You have added a legislative qualifier -- "provided you do so legally" -- constitutional rights are not subject to legislation. Congress can regulate the hell out of just about any product they want to, even to the point of making products illegal to own at all. You can't do that with guaranteed rights. What the guarantee means is subject to SCOTUS interpretation, but you can't legislate tests or qualifiers on rights.

A blind man cannot drive a car. You must get a doctor's permission in order to buy certain drugs. These have legislative qualifiers because they aren't guaranteed rights.

Constitutional rights can indeed be taken away under certain circumstances. For example, if you are in prison, you are not allowed to bear arms during your stay.

what a shiaty piece of engineering! much to complicated!A semi auto is, in most case, a full-auto with an added mechanism to make it fire only one shot per triger pull.Very easy to hack to full-autoSometimes, you only have to wait: a cheap 22LR M1 Carabine clone my father owned started to fire full auto because of wear! he repaired it, because it's expensive, tiring to reload the magazine, you can't hit anything...